Legal Opinion

Cottam v. Heppner

Utah Supreme Court

Decided July 7, 1989No. 20382PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

Plaintiffs Glenn W. Heppner, Irvin Heppner, and the Riverdale Water Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Heppners”) appeal from a judgment entered after a jury trial that awarded the bank a deficiency judgment for the difference between the amount due on a note executed by the Heppners and the amount realized from the sale of the collateral securing the note — a herd of cattle. The Heppners contend that in selling the cattle, the bank did not give the required notice and did not dispose of the collateral in a commercially reasonable manner, all as required…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. State v. KnightUtah Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Scharf v. BMG Corp.Utah Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Norton v. Nat. Bank of Commerce of Pine BluffSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
  4. Kimball v. CampbellUtah Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Atlas Thrift Co. v. HoranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1972

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Hodges v. Gibson Products Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1991
  2. MBank El Paso, N.A. v. SanchezTexas Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Doelle v. BradleyUtah Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Salisbury Livestock Co. v. Colorado Central Credit UnionWyoming Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Kelaidis v. Community First National Bank (In Re Kelaidis)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit · 2002

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API